International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Drip Irrigation: A Solution to Reduce Impact of Industrial Effluent Contaminated Water

Vinod Kumar Dhakad1, Dr. Parag Dalal2, Dr. J.K. Shrivastava3

1M. Tech, Research Scholar, Department of Chemical Engineering, Engineering College, Ujjain 456010 (MP), 2Asst. Prof. Department of Chemical Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain 456010, (MP), India 3Prof. & Dean Department of Chemical Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain 456010, (MP), India ------***------ABSTRACT - Recently, water use efficiency improvement and water quality assessment are big reason to worry about because farmers are facing water scarcity problem in irrigation. GOI and non-beneficial organizations in India are running many programs which help farmers economically, providing training to adopt cost effective micro irrigation technique. So, for agricultural development some efforts to be made from our side in research, which helps farmers in the sense that they can able to produce more yield per drop of water.

Drip irrigation is best option available to reduce impact of industrial effluent contaminated Chambal river water used in irrigation. Drip irrigation reduces water consumption to 50.48% which in turn reduces impacts of river water without any adequate treatment of water. Analysis in this work shows advantages of drip irrigation over conventional surface irrigation or say flood irrigation (i.e. less fertiliser use, less pesticide use, less weed problem, less labour cost, water saving, increases yield etc.).

The study focused on the area nearby Chambal river in Region from [23.453oN 75.415oE] downstream to [24o42’24”N 75o33’12”E] upstream. Where it is greater need to promote drip irrigation technique because farmers in this region mainly use conventional surface irrigation and depends upon river water. As we come to know about the advantages of drip irrigation these are 12.34% productivity gain, 62% electricity saving, 31.28% reduction in cost of cultivation, 19% fertilizer cost saving, 31.37% pesticide cost saving and 20.79% labour cost saving.

Keywords: - Drip Irrigation, Chambal River, Productivity Gain, Water Use Efficiency

INTRODUCTION

The scarcity of water leads to the overexploitation of groundwater for agriculture result in falling water table in Region. It is an important issue to find new resources of water for irrigation and reuse of river water. Chambal River like most rivers in India plays an integral role in the lives of thousands of communities living along the banks of the river. Near river bank there are various types of industries such as fertilizer, textile, cement, sugar, dye, steel/iron furnishing industries, small scale treatment and production industries (distillery, dairy, chemical and pesticides). Effluents from these industries contain N, P, K, heavy metals, organic and inorganic pollutants and toxic colors. Industries near river bank discharged their effluent into fresh water without any adequate treatment (Bharti et al., 2013)[3][5]. Reuse of industrial waste water provides an alternate source of water and nutrients in it are beneficial to accelerate growth of crops, which in turn helps farmers economically by reducing chemical fertilizer use [8].

Chambal River water when used in irrigation leads to the degradation of soil quality and crop health. There is need to find possible solution for efficient and cost effective use of water mitigating all problem associated with it. Micro-irrigation reduces the cost of cultivation, weed problems, soil erosion and increases water use efficiency as well as electricity use efficiency, besides helping reduce the overexploitation of groundwater. Many research revealed that Micro-irrigation saves around 25% [1] to 50% [2] water. (Ibragimov et al., 2007)[7] analysed 18–42% saving of irrigation water and the water use efficiency (WUE) expanded by 35–103% in comparison with flood method of irrigation (FMI). Drip method irrigation (DMI) is a water saving technology that delivers water through small holes or emitters in plastic tubes installed on or below the soil surface almost directly to the roots of plants (see Fig -1). Flow rates are slow, from 0.2- 20 l/h [4], and regular application is the basic concept underlying this method to supply the amount of water needed by the plant

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 390 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

This study therefore attempts to assess the impact of DMI on different parameters of crop cultivation using field-level data collected from farmers by tabular and graphical comparisons with FMI. The main objectives are:

 To analyse the impact of drip irrigation technology on production and productivity of crop by comparing it with non- drip irrigated crop;  To analyse the pattern and efficiency of water use with drip and non-drip irrigated crop;  To estimate electricity saving due to DMI in crop cultivation.  To analyse the economic viability of drip investment in crop cultivation by profit analysis; and  To analyse fertilizer, pesticide and labour cost saving.

This study is carried out in the area along Chambal River from Nagda; a city situated 59.5 km away from holy city Ujjain, to Gandhi Sagar Dam in the historical Malwa region includes districts of western Madhya Pradesh (Fig -2).

METHODOLOGY

Initiation of project starts by selecting 20 model farmers from Ujjain, and district of Madhya Pradesh. 10 farmers (F1-F10) using drip and 10 (F11-F20) without drip for cultivation of 10 crops namely sevanthi, marigold, onion, garlic, wheat, mustard seed, tomato, potato, papaya, coriander. Farm level survey data is collected from farmers during winter seasonal (2016) crops by regular interval interviews at farm and telephonically according to interview guide prepared questioning at different level of crop cultivation.

Fig -1: Study Area [6][9]

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 391 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Drip Economization Parameters (Primary Data):- IT = Time to irrigate once; IF = Irrigation frequency; IP = Cultivation period; POP = Power of pump; WD = Well depth (head); P = Production; FP = Field preparation cost; SEED = Seed cost; FC

= Fertiliser cost; PC = Pesticide cost; LC = Labour cost; OE = other expense; MP = Market price.

Drip Economization Parameters (Secondary Data):- COP = Capacity of pump; THI =Total hour of irrigation; WC = Water consumption; EC = Electricity consumption; GY =Grain yield; COC = Cost of cultivation; PG = Productivity gain

Table 1(a): Primary data collection from sample farmers using DMI

Farmer F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

Crop Sevanthi Marigold Onion Garlic Wheat Mustard Tomato Potato Papaya Coriander AREA (ha) 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 5 1 0.2 0.4 1 0.6 IT (hr) 2.5 3 4 6 3 2 2 4 5 4 IF (month-1) 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 1 IP (month) 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 6 3.5 POP (hp) 8 3 3 12 10 3 3 5 3 5 WD (ft) 1000 160 120 600 60 30 120 250 120 70 P (kg) 3750 8000 16000 14800 30000 1880 8000 9800 55000 1457 FP (Rs) 600 800 1500 6000 12000 2000 1000 2000 2500 700 SEED (Rs) 100 100 500 70000 15625 1200 600 4400 11000 1000 FC (Rs) 3000 1800 4800 9000 12000 1800 3600 2900 7200 1500 PC (Rs) 2800 1400 450 1500 3000 600 4100 1000 3600 1500 LC (Rs) 30000 20000 15000 22500 23000 3600 8000 9000 15000 1600 OE (Rs) 6000 8000 5000 20000 1000 1400 2000 1500 3000 500 MP (Rs/kg) 40 15 8 60 16.5 58 12 10 10 60

Table 1(b): Primary data collection from sample farmers using FMI

Farmer F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20

Crop Sevanthi Marigold Onion Garlic Wheat Mustard Tomato Potato Papaya Coriander AREA(ha) 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 3 1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 IT (hr) 4 3.5 8 15 13 25 5 8 4 4 IF (month-1) 3 3 2 2 2 1 5 3 2 2 IP (month) 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 6 3.5 POP (hp) 8 5 3 8 10 5 3 5 10 3 WD (ft) 420 300 120 600 250 240 120 210 270 170 P (kg) 3070 3500 7400 6000 16500 1700 15000 8800 9800 230 FP (Rs) 600 600 900 4000 8000 2000 2400 2000 3000 300 SEED (Rs) 100 100 200 42000 12000 1300 1350 4600 4200 400 FC (Rs) 8000 3400 3000 4800 9000 1980 7000 3800 1500 200 PC (Rs) 7565 1400 330 1500 2700 600 9000 2000 800 300 LC (Rs) 37000 18000 12000 12000 17000 3700 17000 9000 5000 400 OE (Rs) 8470 4500 3000 13000 1000 1600 6000 1800 700 500 MP(Rs/kg) 40 15 8 60 16.5 58 12 10 10 60

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 392 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Formulae

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( )

( ) Where, = WC, EC, GY, COC, INCOME, PROFIT

Table 2(a): Secondary manipulated data of sample farmers using DMI

Farmer Crop COP THI WC EC GY COC INCOME PROFIT (l/hr) (hr) (l/ha) (kWh/ha) (kg/ha) (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) F1 Sevanthi 7195.312 50 1798828 1492 18750 212500 750000 537500 F2 Marigold 16864.01 48 2023682 268.56 20000 80250 300000 219750 F3 Onion 22485.35 60 1686401 167.85 20000 34062.5 160000 125937.5 F4 Garlic 17988.28 90 1349121 671.4 12333.33 107500 740000 632500 F5 Wheat 149902.3 24 719531.2 35.808 6000 13325 99000 85675 F6 Mustard 89941.4 12 1079297 26.856 1880 10600 109040 98440 F7 Tomato 22485.35 40 4497070 447.6 40000 96500 480000 383500 F8 Potato 17988.28 80 3597656 746 24500 52000 245000 193000 F9 Papaya 22485.35 90 2023682 201.42 55000 42300 550000 507700 F10 Coriander 64243.86 14 1499023 87.03333 2428.333 11333.33 145700 134366.7

Table 2(b): Secondary manipulated data of sample farmers using FMI

Farmer Crop COP THI WC EC GY COC INCOME PROFIT (l/hr) (hr) (l/ha) (kWh/ha) (kg/ha) (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) F11 Sevanthi 17131.7 60 5139509 1790.4 15350 308675 614000 305325 F12 Marigold 14990.23 42 3147949 783.3 17500 140000 262500 122500 F13 Onion 22485.35 80 4497070 447.6 18500 48575 148000 99425 F14 Garlic 11992.19 150 2998047 1492 10000 128833.3 600000 471166.7 F15 Wheat 35976.56 104 1247187 258.6133 5500 16566.67 90750 74183.33 F16 Mustard 18737.79 75 1405334 279.75 1700 11180 98600 87420 F17 Tomato 22485.35 125 7026672 699.375 37500 106875 450000 343125 F18 Potato 21414.62 120 6424386 1119 22000 58000 220000 162000 F19 Papaya 33311.63 48 7994791 1790.4 49000 76000 490000 414000 F20 Coriander 15872.01 28 4444163 626.64 2300 21000 138000 117000

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The farmer attributes the higher yield of crop under DMI to the following three reasons. First, the growth of crop was very good under DMI mainly due to less moisture stress. Second, the weed growth is less because of supplying of water only at the root zone of the crop. Third, since fertilisers are supplied through water (fertigation), the efficiency of fertilisers was very high as losses occurring through evaporation and leaching with water are less under DMI. Because of higher

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 393 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 productivity of crop under DMI, the efficiency of water use along with the efficiency of cost as well as electricity is also found to be significantly higher under drip irrigated crop when compared to the same cultivated under FMI.

Cost reduction is generally realized more in labour intensive operations like ploughing, weeding, irrigation, etc. Since water is supplied at the root zone of the crops, the lands that are used for drip method of irrigation do not require many ploughing as in the case of surface method of irrigation. Similarly, since water is supplied only at the root of the crops, weed problem is less and thus the cost required for weeding operation reduces significantly. Cost of irrigation (both labour cost and other costs) is substantially less under drip method of irrigation because of the following two reasons: First, the requirement of labour is less for managing irrigation under drip method of irrigation. Second, since water saving is very high under drip method, it substantially reduces the working hours of pump set which extensively reduces the cost on electricity/diesel.

Table 3(a): Percentage Analysis CROP %∆WC %∆EC %PG %∆COC %∆INCOME %∆PROFIT Sevanthi 65 16.67 22.12 31.16 22.12 76.04 Marigold 35.71 65.71 14.29 42.68 14.29 79.39 Onion 62.5 62.5 8.11 29.88 8.11 26.67 Garlic 55 55 23.33 16.56 23.33 34.24 Wheat 42.31 86.15 9.09 19.57 9.09 15.49 Mustard 23.2 90.4 10.59 5.19 10.59 12.61 Tomato 36 36 6.67 9.71 6.67 11.77 Potato 44 33.33 11.36 10.34 11.36 19.14 Papaya 74.69 88.75 12.24 44.34 12.24 22.63 Coriander 66.27 86.11 5.58 46.03 5.58 14.84 Average 50.468 62.062 12.338 25.546 12.338 31.282

Chart 1(a): Percentage Analysis 100 90 80 70 %∆WC 60 %∆EC 50 %PG 40 %∆COC 30 %∆INCOME 20 %∆PROFIT 10 0

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 394 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Chart 1(b): Percentage Analysis

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 %∆WC %∆EC %PG %∆COC %∆INCOME %∆PROFIT CONCLUSIONS

Above study shows that Drip irrigation is best option available to reduce impact of industrial effluent contaminated Chambal river water used in irrigation, also for each drop more crop initiative. Following conclusions help us in understanding our objectives.

 It can be seen that profit of the adopters is significantly higher than that of the non-adopters in both methods under consideration. The profit of the adopters is about 2 to 3 times higher than that of the non-adopters. In percentage terms, the profit of the adopters is higher up to 80% for water intensive crops, 11-34% for less water consuming crops and an average estimate of 31.28%.

 Average productivity gain percentage is calculated 12.3411% on per hectare basis means farmers income increases by 12.3411%.

 Adopting drip method of irrigation from each hectare of crop can save over 50.48% of water

 Electricity required for irrigating one hectare of land also reduces significantly. Our estimate reported an average 62% can be saved from each hectare of crop cultivation by adopting drip method.

 This is not surprising because drip irrigation both reduces the cost of the cultivation of crop and increases its yield. As farmers can an average reduces their cost of cultivation up to 25.55%, fertiliser cost 19%, pesticide cost 31.37% and labor cost 20.79% by adopting DMI.

Reference

[1] Aujla, M. S., Thind, H. S., & Buttar, G. S. (2007). Fruit yield and water use efficiency of eggplant (Solanum melongema L.) as influenced by different quantities of nitrogen and water applied through drip and furrow irrigation. Scientia Horticulturae, 112(2), 142-148.

[2] Bashour, I., & Nimah, M. (2004). Fertigation potentials in the Near East region. World, 134, 223.

[3] Bharti, P. K., Kumar, P., & Singh, V. (2013). Impact of industrial effluents on ground water and soil quality in the vicinity of industrial area of Panipat city, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 5(1), 132-136.

[4] Dasberg, S., & Or, D. (1999). Drip irrigation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Drip irrigation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

[5] Dhakad, V. K., Dalal, P., & Shrivastava, J. K. (2018). A Case Study: Effect of industrial effluent contaminated water disposed in Chambal River on irrigation land, 5(3), 2120-2123.

[6] Google Maps. https://www.google.co.in/maps

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 395 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 06 Issue: 02 | Feb 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[7] Ibragimov, N., Evett, S. R., Esanbekov, Y., Kamilov, B. S., Mirzaev, L., & Lamers, J. P. (2007). Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agricultural water management, 90(1-2), 112- 120.

[8] Liang, Q., Gao, R., Xi, B., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2014). Long-term effects of irrigation using water from the river receiving treated industrial wastewater on soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities. Agricultural Water Management, 135, 100-108.

[9] Madhya Pradesh Tourism. http://www.madhya-pradesh-tourism.com/travel-guide/madhya-pradesh map.html

© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 396